Moonlander Vs Pugs

I am helping a friend decide between a Necro Pugs and a Moonlander. Here are some thoughts I shared with him to help him with his decision. I am interested in others thoughts as well.

Definitions:

Fat bike- bike that floats over soft surfaces like snow and sand and rolls smoothly over extended rough surfaces that would be annoying on a normal mountain bike even with suspension. Think surfaces resembling bulldozer tracks, horse prints or even between rail tracks.

Mountain bike- A bike that kicks ass on managed mountain bike specific trails like Lebanon hills in the Minneapolis area. Fast and nimble. I love how the pugs works as a mountain bike others do not. Knowing if you will use your fat bike as a regular mountain bike or as just a fat bike is a key point in the decision.

Mixed surface bike packing bike- Bike that can carry stuff in revelate like bags over terrain that is too sandy, annoyingly bumpy, or varied for a normal mountain bike tire to work well. A bike packing bike also needs to be able to roll pretty fast if you have a pavement or gravel section. I think a fat bike rolls better on gravel and pavement than my traditional mountain bikes do.

With these definitions the following is true for me with 1-10 scores in ( ):

My moonlander is a fat bike (9) that can bike pack (8) and be a mountain bike (7) almost as well as my Pugs

My Pugs is a mountain bike (9) that is perfect for bike packing (10) and very good as a fat bike (8) .

As an all arounder the pugs wins by a small amount. If you take out the desire to use it as a regular mountain bike the Moonlander wins.

Both kick ass and have brought me the most joy I have had on a bike. Bikes are freedom and I am never more free to explore than when on a fat bike.

I don't try to do the one-bike thing. For me a fat bike should be fat. Mine happens to be a Moonlander with a Lefty and Bud/Lou tires. My mountain bike is a full suspension 29er with fat-ish tires.

I also have a pugs with a reasonably light build, UMA70 rims, and Husker tires. It seams that if I plan to take the Pugs out, one of two things happen:
1. I decide it's a bit soft out due to rain - maybe too soft for the Pugs. I grab the Moonlander.
2. I decide it has been long enough since it has rained - probably too dry for the Pugs to be necessary. I grab the 29er.

I guess I'm saying I think the Pugs is a bit of a 'tweener and I rarely use it... But only because I'm fortunate enough to have bikes on both ends of the spectrum. Oddly if I could only own one bike it would probably be the Pugs.

Singlefin he hasn't decided yet and I go back and forth on which is the better option seemingly on a daily basis. I think Ferrstein sums up the dilemma pretty well and although the pug is the better all around bike, you buy a fat bike to fat bike and the Moonlander is the better fat bike (in his surly only situation).

Moonlander Vs Pugs

I went through this same series of questions when I bought my fat bike this March. I wasn't sure if I was going to want the more versatile 4in tire or the ultimate obese of the Moonlander's 5 inchers.

I ended up getting the Moonlander, and I haven't had any regrets. I got mine with the Bud and Lou combo, and have only ridden my 29er 3 times since I bought the Moonlander, including a 40 mile bike race in the Adirondacks. Yes I got tons of looks riding a bike that obese, but I had a blast.

I've owned both. If you're going to ride in soft snow or sand, go with the moonlander. If you're just into bashing about in the woods or smashing singletrack with fat tires, a pugs will be faster, easier to peddle and more fun.

That said, I have a moonlander now and sold the pugs. I have a 29er for singletrack, and only take the moonlander on trails when I have a friend who's riding the 29er. It's still wicked fun with crazy traction, but definitely slower and not as nimble as the pugs.

The best of both worlds is a Necro Pugs - modified. Change to the Moonlander spindle and Moonlander front derailleur Problem Solvers adapter. This allows plenty of clearance to run BFL tires both front and rear - on Clownshoe rims in the front and RD rims in the rear without any chain rub issues or loss of low gears. You can still run the standard narrower tires - Nate, Larry, Knard, etc. A nice combo is Bud in front and Nate in the rear. Have it all.

I dunno - if you're going to go with the wider Q-factor ML crankset you may as well commit to the ML frame. That 11mm additional offset for the crank coincides with the 28mm ML frame offset to give a better chainline. Plus you can run a Lou on a Clownshoe if you wish.

You all are making great points on both sides which is why I think it is a fun problem for my friend to have in buying a necro or moonlander. I went from a normal pugs to a Moonlander and am glad but I also have a marge lite wheel set for the moonlander that my friend will not have. I don't like the 4 inch tires on my moonlanders 100mm rims so to be able to use the bike both summer and winter it seems like a necro with 4 inch tires summer and 5 inch in winter may be the best compromise since it is a cheaper bike which would allow for tire money.

Have to agree with you Jaredbe. With the 'lander, you're really limited to the Clownshoe rims (poor spoke tensions with RD rims spaced at 28mm offset). With the Necro, you have more options. Agree with you ferrstein about being able to run a Lou on a Clownshoe on the 'lander. Not sure if you can fit a Lou/RD rim into the rear of a Necro. Any opinions on that?

I have a Pugs with two wheel sets. I run Marge Lites with Nate front, Knard rear for everyday xc riding. When I ride the beach or snow I switch to a set of ClownShoe front and Rolling Darryl rear both with BFL's. I have no chain line problems with a Race Face Turbine crank. Best of both with just one bike.

rgurney I hate to disagree but you can totally run a marge lite or RD rim set on a moonlander. My marge lite set for my moonlander has a very normal looking dish to it and the spoke tension seems very normal as well. I know the online programs suggest it would be pushing it but surly and my experience have said otherwise. I wonder if the online tools take the offset of the rim holes into account? Either way it totally works and does not seem extreme at all in person to have a marge lite set on a 28mm off set moonlander.
My friend does not think he will use the fat bike for regular mountain bike rides and as a result is going with a Moonlander. I think he will use it as a regular mountain bike more than he thinks but I don't believe either bike can really be a mistake.

Jaredbe - Using the Freespoke program and putting in values for the Marge Lite and Surly hub offset to 28mm, I get 100%/39% spoke tension values. That seems to me like quite a discrepancy. I'm sure you know more about that topic than I do. Surly certainly must. I've spoken to Vik, the guy that runs the Lazy Randonneur blog about that subject and he, for one, does not like numbers like that. If I am wrong, I appreciate being corrected. Thank you. I hope others may weigh in on that subject here as well.

rgurney this has come up before and I suspect something is wrong with the freespoke calculations. Our own forum participant Mikesee built them last year so perhaps he has more to say. I am no wheel building expert but can say the dish looks less extreme than my 29r wheel set and they go have a nice triangulation from the hub to the rim. The offset difference from a clownshoe to marge lite is only 7.5mm I think. The spoke tension does not seem as extreme as the numbers you are getting on freespoke from my very unscientific grab test. All numbers aside the best proof it is ok to do is that they keep working great under my big fat load.